Article Reviews-Geometric Thinking

Katie Clow
Dr. Shaunda Wood
2 March 2015

Senk, S. (1989). Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Writing Geometry Proofs. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, (20)3, 309-321.

Senk (1989) investigates geometry proof writing achievement among middle and high
school students based on the van Hiele levels of geometric reasoning. The study compares
students geometric knowledge from when they first arrived in the fall to when they re-take the
tests in the spring. The study addresses the following questions: How is the van Hiele level of a
student at the beginning of a high school geometry course related to proof writing achievement at
the end of the year? To what extent does a student's van Hiele level of geometry a predictor of
proof-writing achievement? To what extent does achievement on a standardized geometry test at
the end of the school year correlate with proof-writing achievement? When achievement on
standard content is controlled, how are van Hiele levels related to achievement in writing proofs?
These questions were answered when the data was analyzed, and shows that students who start a
high school geometry course unable to recognize common plane geometric figures (Level 0)
have little chance of learning to write geometry proofs later in the year. However, in contrast, a
student who is able to recognize geometric figures by sight has at least a 50/50 change of
mastering proof writing by the end of the year. These results show the importance of the van
Hiele levels, and how teachers should strive to make sure their students are at the appropriate
level before they move on to the next grade level.
Though this student focuses on the middle and high school levels, it is important because
it shows how important developing students' geometric reasoning earl on so they have a
foundation of such skills that they can continue to build on as they move up in grade level.
Students who are not at the appropriate level when they reach middle and high school are unable
to meet the curriculum outcomes because they are still building skills which they should have
already learned.

Although dated, this article is a valuable resource for teachers, as it points out the
importance of developing mathematical concepts as a whole at a young are so students can be
successful later on in their academic careers.

Swafford, J. O. et al. (1997). Increased Knowledge in Geometry and Instructional Practice.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, (28)4, 467-483.
This study by Swafford et al. (1997) examined the effects on instruction of an
intervention program designed to enhance teachers' knowledge of geometry and their knowledge
of research on student cognition in geometry. The author's explain that because instruction is
assumed to have an impact on students' learning, one way to improve and enhance achievement
in geometry is to improve instructional practices. The author's found that the majority of the
teachers that were interviewed were in the low levels of the van Hiele scale of geometric
thinking. It was the belief that by giving teachers an intervention during the summer, their
geometric thinking would improve, making them more confident when teaching geometry and
more willing totake risks. This shows that the Swafford et al. (1997) hypothesis is true. When
teachers knew more about geometry, they were more likely to effectively teach their students.
This study is important as it outlines the importance of teacher knowledge and
confidence. When teachers are confident in their knowledge of nay subject than their students are
more likely to learn and be successful. By developing this confidence in students at a young age,
then their development of geometric thinking is able to follow the appropriate van Hiele levels as
they move through the grades. Students must have basic geometric knowledge so they can
successfully move through the van Hiele levels accordingly.
Teacher's knowledge of the van Hiele levels is also important, as they will know how to
build upon such skills. This study suggests that increased knowledge of both geometry and
students' cognition influences what geometry teachers teach, how they teach it, and certain
professional characteristics they exhibit when teaching geometry.

Burger, W. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele Levels of
Development in Geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(1), 3148.
Burger and Shaughnessy (1986) did a study that outlined the van Hiele levels of
geometric thinking by interviewing students from grades 1 to 12. The purpose of the study was
to find out if students at different grade levels were where they needed to be when it came to
geometric thinking. More specifically, their study wanted to investigate the following questions:
Are the van Hiele levels useful in describing students' thinking processes on geometric tasks?
Can the levels be characterized operationally by student behaviour? Can an interview procedure
be developed to reveal predominant levels of reasoning on specific geometry tasks? In order to
find out the answers to these questions, they developed an interview process and developed
specific tasks that the students had to perform. Their tasks included drawing shapes, identifying
and defining shapes, sorting shapes, determining a mystery shape, establishing properties of
parallelograms and comparing components of a mathematical system.
Their findings showed that they student behaviour on each task was consistent with the
van Hiele levels of geometric thinking. This means that all three research questions were proven
as being true. The authors point out that consistent behaviour among students assigned to the
same level on specific tasks can be summarized by the level of indicators. These, in turn, help
characterize the levels operationally.
This article presented some different ideas about the correlation between geometric
knowledge and grade level. It shows that students have predominant levels of reasoning when it
comes to preforming specific geometric tasks. Though the findings affirmed their initial research
questions, I question the sample they used and the accuracy of their results. Did the authors
choose students who were considered average when it came to geometric thinking or did they
choose students who were exceptional or struggled with geometric thinking? Such questions
make me wonder about the accuracy and the validity of this study, though it does present some
valuale information for teachers like myself to consider.